Tuesday, November 9, 2010

Back to School Part 7

We continue to examine the work of authors George Johnson and Jonathan Losos in their biology textbook, The Living World ((Fifth Edition, McGraw Hill, 2008). In their chapter on evolution and natural selection, these accomplished evolutionists begin by (1) misrepresenting the relationship between microevolution and macroevolution and biological variation here, (2) making a non scientific, metaphysical, truth claim that just happens to mandate the truth of evolution here, (3) making the grossly false statement that the fossils themselves are a factual observation that macroevolution has occurred here and here, (4) making a series of misrepresentations by carefully selecting the evidence to provide to the student and protecting it with circular reasoning here, (5) misrepresenting the molecular evidence here, (6) presenting the student with a blatantly false history of evolutionary theory here and (7) introducing the usual if-and-only-if evolutionary reasoning here.

Johnson and Losos’ next move is to make what is probably the most enduring and powerful metaphysical proof for evolution: biology’s bad designs would not have been intended. In a rebuke to the intelligent design argument, they write:

As you can see in the blown-up image in figure 17.9, the receptor cells are actually facing backward to the stimulus (light). No intelligent designer would design an eye backwards! [302]

Although this non scientific mandate for naturalism goes back to antiquity, it was particularly strong in the early days of modern science leading into the Enlightenment. Theologians and philosophers led the way, but early scientists also agreed. They were on the continent as well as in Britain, including Lutherans, Roman Catholics and Anglicans. By the nineteenth century the reasoning was often accepted with little question.

Darwin’s book was full of arguments from bad design. They were the powerful arguments for his theory. People who do not share the premise (that a bad design would not have been intended) fail to appreciate the power of the argument. The premise does not sway them, so they have difficulty understanding the point. The key here is to assume the evolutionary perspective. Pretend you are an evolutionist for a moment. Pretend you genuinely believe the premise: a bad design would not have been intended.

The argument then becomes clear. And its power is obvious. If you believe in this metaphysical premise, then of course, some sort of evolution must be true. As Darwin argued in his book:

We cannot believe, that the similar bones in the arm of the monkey, in the fore-leg of the horse, in the wing of the bat, and in the flipper of the seal, are of special use to these animals. We may safely attribute these structures to inheritance.

QED: evolution must be true. Bad designs, inefficient designs, even designs not of "special use" must not have been intended—they must have evolved. We may not understand how it occurred (the theory), but we know that it did occur (the fact). As Stephen Jay Gould more recently put it:

Odd arrangements and funny solutions are the proof of evolution—paths that a sensible God would never tread but that a natural process, constrained by history, follows perforce. No one understood this better than Darwin. Ernst Mayr has shown how Darwin, in defending evolution, consistently turned to organic parts and geographic distributions that make the least sense.

Our textbook authors could not have demonstrated evolutionary thinking any more clearly. If a designer—who is capable of designing the vast and complicated biological world—would never have designed our backward receptor cells, then of course evolution is a no-brainer. It must be a fact, one way or another.

Evolution is at bottom a non scientific, religious, theory. It states that new forms emerge from biological variation undergoing natural selection—an idea that repeatedly has failed on the empirical science. But no matter, it must be true. Religion drives science, and it matters.

206 comments:

Very true. And when you ask for actual scientific proof they become incredulous. "You can not run an experiment in the lab for millions of years." Or, "life is far to complex to mimic in the lab." The fact that no scientific experiment has shown one creature evolving into another does not phase them. There is far greater proof that evolution is a religion than a scientific fact.

Fortunately it is much more difficult to argue such banalities in the science of cosmology. You can not reasonably argue that the universe created itself out from nothing as Steven Hawking has recently discovered..

As we saw in the previous thread on Hume’s philosophical arguments against a deity (as conceived by the Abrahamic tradition), such arguments are not scientific. They may qualify as metaphysical if the signal characteristic of a metaphysical argument is its lack of testable entailments. Here I am in agreement with Dr Hunter.

But I disagree with Dr Hunter when he claims that such an argument has power. It may have rhetorical power, but it is scientifically vacuous. What has scientific power is an empirically testable hypothesis, like Darwin’s quoted statement:

“We cannot believe, that the similar bones in the arm of the monkey, in the fore-leg of the horse, in the wing of the bat, and in the flipper of the seal, are of special use to these animals. We may safely attribute these structures to inheritance.”

There is no mention of a designer/creator in this statement, which is based on comparative anatomy and has entailments that have been tested fruitfully in support of his claim for the succeeding 150 years.

One can quibble about the high level of confidence that Darwin projected in his phrasing, but the empirical character of the statement is what makes it a scientific argument for evolution.

“We cannot believe, that the similar bones in the arm of the monkey, in the fore-leg of the horse, in the wing of the bat, and in the flipper of the seal, are of special use to these animals. We may safely attribute these structures to inheritance.”*********

Pedant's comment on Darwin's observation or lack of it:

"There is no mention of a designer/creator in this statement, which is based on comparative anatomy and has entailments that have been tested fruitfully in support of his claim for the succeeding 150 years."======

Actually I wasn't so much concerned or paying attention to that last sentence by Darwin that Cornelius bolded, as much as this part.

Darwin:"WE CANNOT BELIEVE, that the similar bones in the arm of the monkey, in the fore-leg of the horse, in the wing of the bat, and in the flipper of the seal, ARE OF SPECIAL USE TO THESE ANIMALS."

I thought this to be odd, since those are prime examples of specific designed/engineered apparatices with specific functional purpose for which only those specific animals derive benefit. Only with the religious evolutionary eye of faith can one see hereditary similiarities of structures not even remotely similiar.

But then Darwin did arrive at a metaphysical conclusion long before he wrote his infamous book on evolution by saying there could be no God who'd create those first encountered South American warlike primitive Savages and at the same time the superior conquering white intelligent Europeans such as himself. The man reinvented metaphysics in such a way for it to have such a powerful influence against common sense evidenced by the numerous modern day disciples whose faith cannot be shaken.

"Evolution" gave flawed eye better visionExcerpt: IT LOOKS wrong, but the strange, "backwards" structure of the vertebrate retina actually improves vision. ,,, Their findings suggest that sending light via the Müller cells offers several advantages. At least two types of light get inside the eye: light carrying image information, which comes directly through the pupil, and "noise" that has already been reflected multiple times within the eye. The simulations showed that the Müller cells transmit a greater proportion of the former to the rods and cones below, while the latter tends to leak out. This suggests the cells act as light filters, keeping images clear.http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/the-blind-leading-the-blind/#comment-354157

Evolution Vs. The Miracle Of The Eye - Molecular Animationhttp://www.metacafe.com/watch/4189562/

For anyone interested in learning about comparative anatomy (which was the basis of Darwin's statement quoted above), Christian Brothers University, for example, offers a course with many online links to primary data. From the Website:

• Comparative Anatomy is a Group II Biology Elective applicable to the biology major.

A study of the structural and functional evolution of selected organ systems in representative vertebrates. The first part of the course reviews the principals of the comparative method and the phylogenetic (evolutionary) relationships among vertebrates. In the remainder of the course, structures and their organization are interpreted in terms of their embryological development, phylogeny, and functional adaptations.”

Eocene: Only with the religious evolutionary eye of faith can one see hereditary similiarities of structures not even remotely similiar.

The bones that make up the arm of the monkey, the fore-leg of the horse, the wing of the bat, and the flipper of the seal are highly similar. This is a simple observation that anyone can verify.

Cornelius Hunter: QED: evolution must be true.

Indeed, not. The reason he introduced the discussion is because it was a prevalent view among naturalists. From the beginning of the paragraph you excerpted above:

Darwin: The foregoing remarks lead me to say a few words on the protest lately made by some naturalists against the utilitarian doctrine that every detail of structure has been produced for the good of its possessor. They believe that many structures have been created for the sake of beauty, to delight man or the Creator (but this latter point is beyond the scope of scientific discussion), or for the sake of mere variety, a view already discussed.

Just "a few words," and a metaphysical belief that Darwin believes is beyond the scope of scientific discussion, precisely contrary to Cornelius Hunter's comment!

And as Pedant points out, Darwin provides a method of empirical investigation to verify the claim of inheritance. Common inheritance of the arm of the monkey, the fore-leg of the horse, the wing of the bat, and the flipper of the seal, is solidly established by the evidence.

It might be worth specifically highlighting that this argument is made in Chapter 15.3 "Evolution's Critics" specifically in response to ID, whereas 15.2, for example, is titled "The Evidence for Evolution."

Then again, it is core to your thesis that the only evidences for evolution are arguments against ID, so I can see where you might want to gloss over that point, and just call it a 'rebuke.'

The PDF of Chapter 15 is available online:(Massive link, GOOGLE: "McGraw Hill Chapter 15 Evolution and Natural Selection" yields it as the first hit).

Pick any designed object in the world and anyone can find fault with it.

Evolutionists are great on rhetoric and for going on the offensive to hide the weakness of their theory. What better way to hide their weakness than by going after such an amazing organ as the eye.Charles Darwin said, "If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed, which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down."

So what better defense for evolutionists than to find fault with the eye in order to deflect serious consideration.

An eagle has same receptor cell design which faces backwards. "Bald eagles are capable of seeing fish in the water from several hundred feet above, while soaring, gliding or in flapping flight. That means that an eagle flying at an altitude of 1000 feet over open country could spot prey over an area of almost 3 square miles from a fixed position."

How do evolutionists get away with the hogwash that they do? Richard Dawkins illustrates his box-eye evolution example with a handful of parts and evolutionists get a tingle on their leg.

The bottom line is that the receptor cell design has a purpose. Biomicry should try to learn from these designs and not find fault.

"The bones that make up the arm of the monkey, the fore-leg of the horse, the wing of the bat, and the flipper of the seal are highly similar. This is a simple observation that anyone can verify."=====

No this is called your biased faith-based opinion. Your opinion does not translate as a fact. You are using your eye of faith which makes you as equally religious as a Muslim, Baptist, Hinduist, Mormon, Taoist, Tribal Animaist, etc. It offers nothing of value to science or humankind. Proof of that are all the irresponsible uses science has been put to the task under the guise of helping mankind. They have taken the lead in destroying our planet's various ecosystems and are at a loss to find any real world working solutions to reverse the problem.

Instead, all we get from evolutionists are the usual philosophy, idealogy, accountability hang-ups where science is used as a crutch and excuse to justify certain lifestyles. Seriously, you have the freedom to live any way your heart desires, only leave unadulterated neutral scientific discovery out of it.

Granville Sewell PhD Math - Comparing The Jumps Seen In The Fossil Record To The Jumps Needed In Software Programming- videohttp://www.evolutionnews.org/2010/07/granville_sewell_on_his_book_i036441.html

It seems the entire argument for inferring the supposed fossil sequence for whale evolution, in the fossil record, is primarily based on the erroneous readings of 'bone homology', or bone similarity, between different species. Yet this entire line of reasoning, for establishing scientific certainty for any proposed evolutionary sequence of fossils, is anything but 'certain', as this following video and quote clearly point out:

“To take a line of fossils and claim that they represent a lineage is not a scientific hypothesis that can be tested, but an assertion that carries the same validity as a bedtime story, amusing, perhaps even instructive, but not scientific.”Evolutionist - Henry Gee, editor of Nature, on the feasibility of reconstructing phylogenetic trees from fossils

As well, there are very many similar creatures alive today (Marsupial and Placental mammals for one example) that, hypothetically, have completely different evolutionary paths yet their fossils are virtually indistinguishable from one another:

Are look-alikes related? - September 2010http://creation.com/are-look-alikes-related

Why Darwin was wrong about the (genetic) tree of life: - 21 January 2009Excerpt: Syvanen recently compared 2000 genes that are common to humans, frogs, sea squirts, sea urchins, fruit flies and nematodes. In theory, he should have been able to use the gene sequences to construct an evolutionary tree showing the relationships between the six animals. He failed. The problem was that different genes told contradictory evolutionary stories. This was especially true of sea-squirt genes. Conventionally, sea squirts - also known as tunicates - are lumped together with frogs, humans and other vertebrates in the phylum Chordata, but the genes were sending mixed signals. Some genes did indeed cluster within the chordates, but others indicated that tunicates should be placed with sea urchins, which aren't chordates. "Roughly 50 per cent of its genes have one evolutionary history and 50 per cent another," Syvanen says. ."We've just annihilated the tree of life. It's not a tree any more, it's a different topology entirely," says Syvanen. "What would Darwin have made of that?"http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20126921.600-why-darwin-was-wrong-about-the-tree-of-life.html

"It might be worth specifically highlighting that this argument is made in Chapter 15.3 "Evolution's Critics" specifically in response to ID, whereas 15.2, for example, is titled "The Evidence for Evolution."=====

Well I just looked it up and it hits on fossils which are a wasted arguement. It goes into nothing more than telling a great mythical story with all the usual bad examples. Darwin and Moby Dick, a tale of the primitive deer or wolf (they reserve the right to change characters at their convenient disgression) which requires faith that they have the ability to channel the dead spirits of these things to get it right.

Then there is the Rhino evolutionary fossils. How many times have these geniuses had to go back and admit that smaller similiar forms were nothing more than infantile examples or even adulescent teenagers of the beast in question ??? Then they add this stupid comment on the Rhino beast in question for which Cornelius already dealt with. Macroevolution is a FACT apparently for no other reason than observing those animated artist renderings of Rhino stages which makes it so ??? Cornelius dealt with it and you all made excuses for it.

Then in that Figure 15.4 they take us on a trip back to Haeckle's Embryo-world ??? Cornelius dealt with all of this junk early on in the past blogs as you should have been very well aware.

All that evidence is nothing more than more faith-based statement making. The Earth is really in trouble if this is what is going to be offered to college students who still won't have clue one on real world workable solutions to the problems presently facing humankind and nature which right now is clearly in the toilette environmental-wise.

Eocene: They have taken the lead in destroying our planet's various ecosystems and are at a loss to find any real world working solutions to reverse the problem.

The relationship between technologically modern humans and the environment is irrelevant as to whether or not primate forelimbs resemble those of a bat. In fact, they each have the same basic parts, humerus, radius, ulna, carpals, metacarpals and phalanges, with the principle differences being one of relative size.

bornagain77: It seems the entire argument for inferring the supposed fossil sequence for whale evolution, in the fossil record, is primarily based on the erroneous readings of 'bone homology', or bone similarity, between different species.

You don't seem to be making a coherent argument. Also, videos are difficult to respond to without a transcript.

"Roughly 50 per cent of its genes have one evolutionary history and 50 per cent another," Syvanen says. ."We've just annihilated the tree of life. It's not a tree any more, it's a different topology entirely," says Syvanen."

The results indicate a phylogeny that is largely tree-like, with the occasional crossing. Other exceptions include hybridization between related organisms, horizontal gene transfer, endosymbiosis, and endogenous retroviruses.

"The relationship between technologically modern humans and the environment is irrelevant as to whether or not primate forelimbs resemble those of a bat. In fact, they each have the same basic parts, humerus, radius, ulna, carpals, metacarpals and phalanges, with the principle differences being one of relative size."======

WRONG: The ONLY thing that truly matters is our (Mankind) and nature's future. The fact that you choose to live in a mythological past is proof of how bad we need God's Kingdom rule. Living in a dead faith leads only to an eternal death which I imagine that is something you believe in anyway. Nothing about your faith has any redeaming value other than leading others down the broad highway with an unfortunate ubrupt deadend.

Zachriel:The bones that make up the arm of the monkey, the fore-leg of the horse, the wing of the bat, and the flipper of the seal are highly similar. This is a simple observation that anyone can verify.

And that observation can be accounted for by a common design.

Zachriel:Common inheritance of the arm of the monkey, the fore-leg of the horse, the wing of the bat, and the flipper of the seal, is solidly established by the evidence.

The evidence says that the arm of the monkey was inherited from a monkey, the fore-leg of a horse was inherited from a horse, the wing of a bat was inherited from a bat and the flipper of a seal was inherited from a seal.

Zachriel: The relationship between technologically modern humans and the environment is irrelevant as to whether or not primate forelimbs resemble those of a bat. In fact, they each have the same basic parts, humerus, radius, ulna, carpals, metacarpals and phalanges, with the principle differences being one of relative size.

Eocene: WRONG: The ONLY thing that truly matters is our (Mankind) and nature's future.

Your future is not relevant to the observable similarities of mammalian limbs.

Eocene says there is no such similarity. Perhaps you could explain it to him.

Joe G: The evidence says that the arm of the monkey was inherited from a monkey, the fore-leg of a horse was inherited from a horse, the wing of a bat was inherited from a bat and the flipper of a seal was inherited from a seal.

And that these were inherited from a common synapsid ancestor.

Joe G: If it was testable I would still be an evolutionist and so would the many other people who have had it with the lies of evolution.

You can find such tests in a number of scientific journals, including Evolution: the International Journal of Organic Evolution, the Journal of Systematics and Evolution, the Biological Journal of the Linnean Society, periodic articles in the journal Nature, and a large number of more specialized journals.

Zachriel said, "The results indicate a phylogeny that is largely tree-like, with the occasional crossing. Other exceptions include hybridization between related organisms, horizontal gene transfer, endosymbiosis, and endogenous retroviruses"

So the phylogenetic tree is "tree-like" except when it isn't.

And the imaginary "singular" nested hierarchy, is "singular" except when it isn't. Only in evolution can something be claimed to be both sigular and not so.

Do you believe in the law of non-contradiction?

Regarding the nested hierarchies, no one debates (including me) that dolphins and cats can be grouped together as mammals.

But you minimize many exceptions to maintain the evolutionary tree and nested hierarchy structure of life, yet you raise a fuss about grouping automobiles in a nested hierarchy.

Some designed products can be grouped into "singular" or "unigue" nested hierarchies with less exceptions than that of living organisms, especially when only the products that are considered are from one manufacturer/designer.

Think about this scenario... If you limit the criteria of the automobile nested hierarchy to One and only maker and parts supplier (One Creator) and see the options like CD players as minor items, then your preceived issues with grouping automobiles in a nested hierarchy is not reasonable.

Organisms within the same species are not genetically or physically 100% the same. You have differences in size, color, different kinds of hair. As an analogy to automobile "options"... man's hair not only comes in different colors and texture (straight, curly, kinky), but even in bald head and no bald head "options".

People like lots of options when buying a car. A car maker, like Ford is motivated by the customer and the competition to offers lots of options in their cars. If Ford was the only car manufacturer and didn't have customers but just made the cars because they liked cars, what would the selection be like then? Wasn't it Henry Ford in the old days that offered the Model A only in black? Competition and customers changed that.

What would a designed product line look like if there was only one maker, no competition, and no input from the customer? They just loved to build stuff. Less options, more borrowing and sharing of parts and design. Novel and interesting designs.

Sound familar?

Bornagain77's post from the Newscientist is probably just the tip of the iceberg as only a comparatively few organisms have been sequenced.

What the newscientist quote shows is a common designer, copying and reusing the genetic code and following similar patterns of design.

The genetic evidence blew away the previous evolutionary tree of the sea-squirt. What does this say about trying to build a compelling history record of fossils into a phylogenetic tree not using genetics? Evolutionists are so confident about stringing ancient fossils together to show descent, but genetic sequencing is not possible to either confirm or not. The little sea-squirt shows that evolutionary methods of building evolutionary trees are seriously questionable.

Do orthologous gene phylogenies really support tree-thinking?Excerpt: We conclude that we simply cannot determine if a large portion of the genes have a common history.,,, CONCLUSION: Our phylogenetic analyses do not support tree-thinking.http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15913459

The universal ancestor - Carl WoeseExcerpt: No consistent organismal phylogeny has emerged from the many individual protein phylogenies so far produced. Phylogenetic incongruities can be seen everywhere in the universal tree, from its root to the major branchings within and among the various taxa to the makeup of the primary groupings themselves.http://www.pnas.org/content/95/12/6854.full

Uprooting The Tree Of Life - W. Ford DoolittleExcerpt: as DNA sequences of complete genomes have become increasingly available, my group and others have noted patterns that are disturbingly at odds with the prevailing beliefs. http://people.ibest.uidaho.edu/~bree/courses/2_Doolittle_2000.pdf

Walter T. Brown, In the Beginning (1989), p. 7Excerpt: "There is not a trace of evidence on the molecular level for the traditional evolutionary series: simple sea life > fish> amphibians > reptiles> mammals. In general, each of the many categories of organisms appear to be equally isolated."http://evolution-facts.org/Appendix/a21.htm

A Primer on the Tree of Life - Casey Luskin - 2009Excerpt: The truth is that common ancestry is merely an assumption that governs interpretation of the data, not an undeniable conclusion, and whenever data contradicts expectations of common descent, evolutionists resort to a variety of different ad hoc rationalizations to save common descent from being falsified.http://www.discovery.org/a/10651

Zachriel:And that these were inherited from a common synapsid ancestor.

That is what you say however you cannot support that claim.

Zachriel:You can find such tests in a number of scientific journals, including Evolution: the International Journal of Organic Evolution, the Journal of Systematics and Evolution, the Biological Journal of the Linnean Society, periodic articles in the journal Nature, and a large number of more specialized journals.

I looked the tests are not there.

As a matter of fact I cannot find one reference to either an accumulation of genetic accidents nor blind, undirected chemical processes. There isn't anything in developmental biology that supports UCD. No one knows what genes needed to get what mutations- nothing testable.

In spite of this crushing evidence found the suddenness of the Cambrian explosion, and DNA analysis of different phyla and species which shows discontinuity between them, most scientists, and thus a large portion of the public, continues to imagine all life on earth descended from a common bacterial ancestor and continues to imagine missing links with every new fossil discovery making mainstream media headlines. Yet the true story of life since the Cambrian explosion, which is actually told by the fossil record itself, tells a very different story than the imaginative tales found in mainstream media accounts.

Ancient Fossils That Have Not Changed For Millions Of Years - videohttp://www.metacafe.com/watch/4113820

"LIVING" FOSSILS OF MARINE CREATURES - unchanged for millions of years - (Pictures - Including a 500 million year old starfish specimen)http://www.hyahya.org/books/darwinism/atlas_creation_III/atlas_creation_III_03.php

THE FOSSILS IN THE CREATION MUSEUM - 1000's of pictures of ancient 'living' fossils that have not changed for millions of years:http://www.fossil-museum.com/fossils/?page=0&limit=30

Fossils Without Evolution - June 2010 Excerpt: New fossils continue to turn up around the world. Many of them have an amazing characteristic in common: they look almost exactly like their living counterparts, despite being millions of years old,,, http://www.creationsafaris.com/crev201006.htm#20100618a

Punctuated Equilibrium and Patterns from the Fossil Record - Casey Luskin Excerpt: “The Cambrian Explosion is by no means the only “explosion” in the fossil record. One evolutionist concedes that for the origin of fishes, “this is one count in the creationists’ charge that can only evoke in unison from paleontologists a plea of nolo contendere [no contest].” Plant biologists have called the origin of plants an “explosion,” saying, “the … radiation of land (plant) biotas is the terrestrial equivalent of the much-debated Cambrian ‘explosion’ of marine faunas.” Vertebrate paleontologists believe there was a mammal explosion because of the few transitional forms between major mammal groups: “There are all sorts of gaps: absence of gradationally intermediate ‘transitional’ forms between species, but also between larger groups — between, say, families of carnivores, or the orders of mammals.” Another study, “Evolutionary Explosions and the Phylogenetic Fuse,” found a bird (as well as a mammal) “Early Tertiary ‘explosion’” because many bird and mammal groups appear in a short time period lacking immediately recognizable ancestral forms. Finally, others have called the origin of our own genus Homo, “a genetic revolution” where “no australopithecine (ape) species is obviously transitional” leading one commentator to call it, like others called the Cambrian Explosion, a “big bang theory” of human evolution." http://www.ideacenter.org/contentmgr/showdetails.php/id/1232

Neal Tedford: So the phylogenetic tree is "tree-like" except when it isn't.

Is the Earth an oblate sphere?

Neal Tedford: And the imaginary "singular" nested hierarchy, is "singular" except when it isn't. Only in evolution can something be claimed to be both sigular and not so.

The fit is not perfect, but the overall pattern is a nested hierarchy. This isn't that difficult a concept, by the way.

Neal Tedford: Do you believe in the law of non-contradiction?

It's an axiom.

Neal Tedford: Regarding the nested hierarchies, no one debates (including me) that dolphins and cats can be grouped together as mammals.

Once again, that not the question. We can group anything arbitrarily. The question is whether given a fish, dolphin and cat, what is the most reasoanble and parsimonious classification based on traits.

Neal Tedford: But you minimize many exceptions to maintain the evolutionary tree and nested hierarchy structure of life, yet you raise a fuss about grouping automobiles in a nested hierarchy.

What we're doing is examining specifics. But for some reason it has taken weeks just to get a straight answer on the question of fish, dolphins and cats. And now you back away again, or really don't understand the distinction.

We intend to take as many specifics as required to show that the nested hierarchy is not an artifact of classification, but an observable pattern in biology; fish, dolphin, cat, lion.

Neal Tedford: Think about this scenario... If you limit the criteria of the automobile nested hierarchy to One and only maker and parts supplier (One Creator) and see the options like CD players as minor items, then your preceived issues with grouping automobiles in a nested hierarchy is not reasonable.

Still not a singular nested hierarchy. A powertrain may underly a car and a truck from the same maker, while another powertrain may underly a larger truck. Hence, if we first group by car/truck, we will get a different hierarchy than if we first group by powertrain. And there is no reason to ignore the electronics. They are traits, just like others. We are looking for the most parsimonious grouping, and it is ambiguous with vehicles.

But there is only one reasonable way to classify fish, dolphins and cats when considering the panoply of biological traits.

Neal Tedford: People like lots of options when buying a car. A car maker, like Ford is motivated by the customer and the competition to offers lots of options in their cars.

Yes. That's why they borrow generously across lines and adopt traits from other lineages, and why CDs are popped in and out, regardless of model. But again, you're losing track.

This is very simple. There is an observable nested hierarchy in biology. We can discuss the exceptions against the background pattern, but not as long as you don't admit that such a pattern exists.

Very odd. Have you made the editors of the journals Evolution and Nature that they aren't publishing scientific research on evolution?!

bornagain77: Yet the true story of life since the Cambrian explosion, which is actually told by the fossil record itself, tells a very different story than the imaginative tales found in mainstream media accounts.

Still not sure if you are making a coherent argument. There are a great many mysteries in the history of life. So?

Oldest fossil shrimp preserved with muscles - November 9 2010Excerpt: Rodney Feldmann and Carrie Schweitzer (both Kent State University) report on the oldest fossil shrimp known to date. The creature in stone is as much as 360 million years old and was found in Oklahoma. Even the muscles of the fossil are preserved. http://www.physorg.com/news/2010-11-oldest-fossil-shrimp-muscles.html

picture of ancient compared to modern:http://cdn.physorg.com/newman/gfx/news/oldestfossil.jpg

Joe G: Evolution isn't being debated- and I have told you tat many times.

We were discussing the similarities between the forelimbs of various mammalian organisms, and whether they were inherited with modification from a common ancestor. Common Descent is an important component of the Theory of Evolution. What did you think we were talking about?

ME: The earth is close to being an oblate sphere. Qualification is necessary. Only when you are backed into a corner will you qualify your nested hierarch hypothesis, and when not cornered you pretend like the qualification isn't worth mentioning.

Zach: The fit is not perfect, but the overall pattern is a nested hierarchy.

Zach: Once again, that not the question. We can group anything arbitrarily. The question is whether given a fish, dolphin and cat, what is the most reasoanble and parsimonious classification based on traits.

ME: Given the three: fish, dolphin and cat, then the dolphin and cat would meet this criteria. The grouping of dolphin and cat are not arbituary. Neither is grouping the Ford F250 with the Ford F350.

Zach: We intend to take as many specifics as required to show that the nested hierarchy is not an artifact of classification, but an observable pattern in biology; fish, dolphin, cat, lion.

ME: People do the classifications, but if you mean, if they arbitrary. No. The classications are based on similarity. What I disagree with is your insistence on this "unique" and "singular" adjective that you keep holding on.

Neal Tedford: Think about this scenario... If you limit the criteria of the automobile nested hierarchy to One and only maker and parts supplier (One Creator) and see the options like CD players as minor items, then your preceived issues with grouping automobiles in a nested hierarchy is not reasonable.

Zach: Still not a singular nested hierarchy. A powertrain may underly a car and a truck from the same maker, while another powertrain may underly a larger truck. Hence, if we first group by car/truck, we will get a different hierarchy than if we first group by powertrain. And there is no reason to ignore the electronics. They are traits, just like others. We are looking for the most parsimonious grouping, and it is ambiguous with vehicles.

ME: Hence if we first group fish, dolphins and cats by "fins" we have a different hierarchy. You need to be consistent.

Do you understand that there are various classification systems and some have more or less groupings and categories than others? Some don't have "domains" for example. Some have 6 kingdoms, some have 5. So how can you say that there is only one way? You are contradicting the plain facts of there being numerous classification systems.

Zach: But there is only one reasonable way to classify fish, dolphins and cats when considering the panoply of biological traits....

This is very simple. There is an observable nested hierarchy in biology.

When you look at fish, dolphins and cats, fish are the more distinct. If your willing to accept that designed objects can meet the same criteria you set for living organisms in a nested hierarchy we have agreement. Are you willing to do so?

That's right. And that allows us to have a rational discussion of the Earth's shape without the pattern having to be exact—as opposed to one person insisting that it doesn't have a shape!

Neal Tedford: Qualification is necessary. Only when you are backed into a corner will you qualify your nested hierarch hypothesis, and when not cornered you pretend like the qualification isn't worth mentioning.

Not at all!! Indeed, the qualifying began with Darwin in 1859. But we can't simply wave our hands and say the Earth doesn't have a shape because it's not a perfect oblate spheroid. (Newton's Theory predicted the oblation, by the way.) Similarly, we can't just pretend the nested hierarchy doesn't exist just because the fit isn't perfect. In fact, for many taxa, the fit is absolutely striking.

Neal Tedford: What I disagree with is your insistence on this "unique" and "singular" adjective that you keep holding on.

There is only *one* reasonable way to classify fish, dolphins, cats and lions (and for many other taxa) by biological traits. And it forms a nested hierarchy. There's only one.

Neal Tedford: Hence if we first group fish, dolphins and cats by "fins" we have a different hierarchy. You need to be consistent.

That's right! But you've already agreed that when considering the panoply of traits, that dolphins and cats group better than dolphins and fish or cats and fish. Hearts, lungs, cerebrums, blood chemistry, skeletons, hair follicles, embryonic limb buds, ossicles, mammary glands, so many traits they share. Even the fins of fish and dolphins are substantially different when you actually look at them closely.

Trucks and cars just aren't like that. There are many different, equally consistent ways to form classifications. We've provided ample examples.

Consider this: If you have an organism with a lower jaw comprised of a single bone, we can then predict all these characteristics:

A complex eukaryote cell structure with organelles such as mitochondria, ingests other organisms for nourishment, has bilateral symmetry, an alimentary canal, a bony head at one end with an array of sense organs, vertebrae protecting a nerve cord, integument, ribs, four limbs during at least at some stage of life, neck, neocortex, endothermic, internal fertilization, four-chambered heart, lungs with alveoli and a muscular diaphragm, two eyes, three ear bones in each of two ears, hair or at least hair follicles at some stage of life, sebaceous glands including specialized mammaries, cares for its young.

If you have a 350 engine, you can't tell a lot about the rest of the vehicle. It may be a luxury car, a family car, a racing car, or a truck. It could be a Chevy, Buick, Oldsmobile, Pontiac, or a Cadillac. It may have power steering, or not. It may have automatic transmission, or not. It may have a radio, or not. And that's before the customizers get to work! You can't really predict much of anything. That's the nature of design!

Neal Tedford: Some don't have "domains" for example. Some have 6 kingdoms, some have 5.

Levels tend to be somewhat arbitrary as there may not always be an exact dividing line. And classifications that include bacteria can be difficult to resolve with current technology. Let's start with what we can establish with some certainty. Vertebrates exhibit a strong nested hierarchy. Eukaryotes with few exceptions. Even bacteria to a large extent. Okay so far?

Neal Tedford: When you look at fish, dolphins and cats, fish are the more distinct. If your willing to accept that designed objects can meet the same criteria you set for living organisms in a nested hierarchy we have agreement. Are you willing to do so?

That's very bizarre. We're not negotiating, but having a discussion. Your acceptance of the former does not depend on our acceptance of the latter. It doesn't work that way. If you have come to believe that many taxa are reasonably arranged into a single nested hierarchy (with appropriate caveats), then you should simply say so.

Take a look at a standard Tree of Life. Ignore the hereditary implications for now.

Zach said, "If you have a 350 engine, you can't tell a lot about the rest of the vehicle. It may be a luxury car, a family car, a racing car, or a truck."

Me: If you have a fin, you can't tell a lot about the rest of the organism, it may be a trout, a whale, a dolphin or an eel. Your just not being consistent.

Zach: "Levels tend to be somewhat arbitrary as there may not always be an exact dividing line. And classifications that include bacteria can be difficult to resolve with current technology. Let's start with what we can establish with some certainty. Vertebrates exhibit a strong nested hierarchy. Eukaryotes with few exceptions. Even bacteria to a large extent. Okay so far? "

Me: So "levels are arbitrary", but everything can be classified into a single objective hierarchy.

I'm not negotiating, but saying that an "objective" nested hierarchy can be the result of design? Do you agree with that?

Wow, quite an asylum this thread has turned into. We have Philip Cunningham (aka bornagain77) copying and pasting his usual quote mines and videos; we have Eocene looking forward to the Kingdom of God; we have Pastor Neal Tedford telling his usual lies; we have Joseph Gallien (aka Joe G, ID Guy etc etc) spouting his usual insults and dumb assertions. Did I forget anyone?

Rhetorical question: what can we conclude about the sorry state of ID when its defenders are such obvious fruit loops?

Zachriel: If you have a 350 engine, you can't tell a lot about the rest of the vehicle. It may be a luxury car, a family car, a racing car, or a truck.

Neal Tedford: If you have a fin, you can't tell a lot about the rest of the organism, it may be a trout, a whale, a dolphin or an eel. Your just not being consistent.

While we pointed out a dramatic correlation in vertebrates, and the lack of correlation in vehicles, you continue to strain to sustain an unsustainable position.

A dolphin's flipper is comprised of the same bones as other mammals, including the humerus, carpus, metacarpus and phalanges. The hind fin moves vertically, unlike fish. And if we look even more closely, we will see the blood and cell structure of a mammal. So, you're simply wrong.

Zachriel: So "levels are arbitrary", but everything can be classified into a single objective hierarchy.

That's right. The hierarchy is defined in terms of sets. It's convenient to give names to certain groupings, but this may or may not reflect "levels." Trees and life aren't neat like that. To visualize this, consider again our perennial woody plant, the tree. We might name a few of the limbs. Naming a limb always represents a nested hierarchy, but several named limbs may or may not represent a single "level," as measured in the number of branchings from the trunk.

Neal Tedford: I'm not negotiating, but saying that an "objective" nested hierarchy can be the result of design? Do you agree with that?

People certainly do created nested hierarchies, such as military hierarchies, but that's distinct from *categorizing* *artifacts* into nested hierarchies. Vehicles, for instance, do not classify into a single nested hierarchy, but many different, and equally consistent nested hierarchies.

Neal Tedford: Looking at the planoply of characteristics, how would you group the following: Submarine, Sports Car, Sedan?

We would more than likely group the sports car and sedan. Keep in mind, though, that the classification doesn't work across all or even most vehicles. We've given several examples already.

Neal Tedford: Can you predict features that a submarine would have?

Your question doesn't make sense. A submarine is defined as an underwater vehicle, but other than that, we would have to examine the specific submarine. It could have the same engine as the sports car for all we know.

Joe G: It has everything to do with definitions as what you said is how we defined, ie classified the organisms.

If an organism has a lower jaw comprised of a single bone, is there anything we can predict about the other characteristics of the organism? Whether it walks or runs or flies or swims or digs, whether it is awake in the day or the night, whether it is carnivorous or herbivorous or omnivorous?

Zachriel: If an organism has a lower jaw comprised of a single bone, is there anything we can predict about the other characteristics of the organism?

We can "predict" it will match our classification/ definitions of such an organism.

What is wrong with you?

LOL! Joetard the "150 IQ" moron still doesn't understand the difference between the human created map and the empirically discovered territory.

Hey Joetard, how does the concept of nested hierarchies fit in with your front-loading claims? How could a single ancient genome that was 'front-loaded' with all the required genetic information needed by creatures today not create a nested hierarchy as lineages descended with modification over time?

thortard the liar:Joe still doesn't understand the difference between the human created map and the empirically discovered territory.

Wow all thortard can do is make up lies and false accusations.

thortard the liar:Hey Joe, how does the concept of nested hierarchies fit in with your front-loading claims?

A- They ain't my claims I just understand the concept. B- it fits in exactly how I said- by producing unique and unreversed charcteristics.

thortard the liar:How could a single ancient genome that was 'front-loaded' with all the required genetic information needed by creatures today not create a nested hierarchy as lineages descended with modification over time?

Strawman- no one said front-loading had to have only a single genome. But anyway if the characteristics were not designed to be unique and unreversed. Duh.

The Biological Big Bang model for the major transitions in evolution - Eugene V Koonin - Background:"Major transitions in biological evolution show the same pattern of sudden emergence of diverse forms at a new level of complexity. The relationships between major groups within an emergent new class of biological entities are hard to decipher and do not seem to fit the tree pattern that, following Darwin's original proposal, remains the dominant description of biological evolution. The cases in point include the origin of complex RNA molecules and protein folds; major groups of viruses; archaea and bacteria, and the principal lineages within each of these prokaryotic domains; eukaryotic supergroups; and animal phyla. In each of these pivotal nexuses in life's history, the principal "types" seem to appear rapidly and fully equipped with the signature features of the respective new level of biological organization. No intermediate "grades" or intermediate forms between different types are detectable;http://www.biology-direct.com/content/2/1/21

thortard:If common descent with modification were true what distribution of traits would you expect to find?

That would all depend on mass extinctions, traits being lost and replaced- but anyway if universal common descent were true I would expect scientists could be able to go into a lab and tinker with fish embryos (for example) and get them to develop lungs, legs and anything else that makes an amphibian.

If you don't know what common descent would look like, how can you be so sure you haven't seen it in the fossil and genetic records?

T: If common descent with modification were true what distribution of traits would you expect to find?

That would all depend on mass extinctions, traits being lost and replaced- but anyway if universal common descent were true I would expect scientists could be able to go into a lab and tinker with fish embryos (for example) and get them to develop lungs, legs and anything else that makes an amphibian.

Why would you think such a stupid thing? Modern amphibians didn't evolve from modern fish. Just how clueless are you?

You mean if we change our system of classification then suddenly the jaw bone and teeth won't correlate with mammary glands? That is truly odd.

Maybe you could show how that works. We have an organism whose lower jaw is comprised of a single bone and some teeth. How does our system of classification change whether the organism has mammary glands?

Cornelius says:"Pretend you genuinely believe the premise: a bad design would not have been intended."

You say that like its somehow unreasonable. It is certainly not evidence for God, is it?

Alternatively you must posit that an omnipotent, good and all-loving being made bad designs for unknown and probably unknowable reasons. Or imperfect aliens made them. Or something else, maybe? Assertions, not theories. Of course, Cornelius, you personally have faith in the first possibility - and on what grounds? Lacking evidence for god aren't we looking for Russell's teapot? Indeed, if you weren't raised in a Christian society, on what rational grounds would pick that particular version of events?

The position of the people you term evolutionists is that, without evidence to contrary, the processes of evolution appear to be the best explanation for life's diversity.

And please, let's not turn this into another thing about "evolutionists" stating evolution is a "fact". That is simply a response to creationists' misuse of the word theory and nothing more. Fact is not a word I would use for evolution. Maybe "only theory with any evidence, and lot's of evidence at that" is better.

And that is the point. Evolution is a theory (not 'just a theory') that is much, much better supported than the alternatives. This is the basis for its scientific acceptance; it is not accepted by default without evidence as an alternative to God. Whether a designer would or wouldn't do something is a sideline issue, contrary to your continued assertion.

"God's Kingdom Rule" And you accuse Zacherial of living in a mythological past while you're living in a dream world that is somehow going to appear in the future. Truly amazing!"======

Yes it is truly amazing, especially since you seem incapable of grasping that God's Kingdom over the Earth is yet future, Hardly past tense, since if you are truly a Christian (mysticism/spiritualism not included) you must be receiting this in your "Lords Prayer" / "Our Father Prayer" repetitions daily as the others do.

Hmmmmm. let's see, how does that one verse go again ??? Oh yes, "Your Kingdom come, your will be done, as it is in heaven also upon EARTH".

Zachriel said, "People certainly do created nested hierarchies, such as military hierarchies, but that's distinct from *categorizing* *artifacts* into nested hierarchies. Vehicles, for instance, do not classify into a single nested hierarchy, but many different, and equally consistent nested hierarchies."

Me: You continue to be inconsistent in the applying your nested hierarchy. Your whole hypothesis is a tautology.

Neal, instead of bluffing and lying about nested hierarchies, pick some phylogeny software from here and run it on vehicles. See if you can come up with a best supported tree and report the results back here.

Yes it is truly amazing, especially since you seem incapable of grasping that God's Kingdom over the Earth is yet future, Hardly past tense, since if you are truly a Christian (mysticism/spiritualism not included) you must be receiting this in your "Lords Prayer" / "Our Father Prayer" repetitions daily as the others do.

=========================

Actually Eocene I'm not a Christian, that religion is the biggest load of garbage ever to have been invented. It really is incredible how you can criticise Zachriel and the others on here. Quoting garbage from the bible (of all things) does nothing for me; in fact I had a friend who would try that stupid nonsense. It didn’t work then and isn’t going to work now.

One more thing this is what I actually said:"Somehow going to appear in the future”! So where on earth do you get the idea it's in the past tense?

Neal Tedford: You continue to be inconsistent in the applying your nested hierarchy.

It's not our nested hierarchy any more than the Earth's spherical shape is our sphere.

We are applying it very consistently. There are many ways to classify vehicles or books, that is, there are many ways to organize them into consistent nested hierarchies. (You've been provided several typical examples.) However, there is only one consistent nested hierarchy when classifying organisms by biological traits.

Can you explain on which basis you affirm it? The Zachriel's explanation of the observed nested hierarchy for the chordata has been supported by precise examples. You can ask several questions on the details, but it is gratuitous to define it a tautology.

The tautology is using the nested hierarchy as evidence for evolution and using cladograms to build the nested hierarchy. Some evolutionists would say that since biological classification is a fact, then it follows that evolution MUST be a fact. Darwin was so convinced of this that it overrode other problems with his hypothesis.

Zachriel thinks that designed objects can only be classified arbitrarily in a nested hierarchy. He must not admit otherwise because it is the foundation of his whole argument.

Neal Tedford: Some evolutionists would say that since biological classification is a fact, then it follows that evolution MUST be a fact.

Well, no. That's not how the scientific method works.

We have a first-order hypothesis, descent with modification along uncrossed lines. The hypothesis predicts a nested hierarchy of traits. We observe the nested hierarchy*. This supports, but does not prove, the hypothesis.

* There is a clear pattern of a singular nested hierarchy when categorizing organisms by biological traits.

Neal Tedford: Zachriel thinks that designed objects can only be classified arbitrarily in a nested hierarchy.

Artifacts, as a rule, can be categorized into many, equally consistent hierarchies. Which one you choose can be arbitrary, but that doesn't mean the classifications are completely arbitrary. If they were, they would have no utility.

The tautology is using the nested hierarchy as evidence for evolution and using cladograms to build the nested hierarchy.

Cladograms aren't used to build the nested hierarchy you idiot. Cladograms are descriptions of the empirically observed nested hierarchies found in living things.

Some evolutionists would say that since biological classification is a fact, then it follows that evolution MUST be a fact. Darwin was so convinced of this that it overrode other problems with his hypothesis

No one in the biological sciences community says or thinks that you idiot. That's your own stupid strawman.

Zachriel thinks that designed objects can only be classified arbitrarily in a nested hierarchy. He must not admit otherwise because it is the foundation of his whole argument.

That's not Zachriel's argument either you idiot. Like always, you haven't tried to comprehend a single explanation you've been given and just like to rejurgitate your own ignorance based misunderstandings.

So, then we look for additional support through independent means. We might look for intermediate organisms in the appropriate strata. We could look at the molecular structure of genes to see if they form a nested hierarchy consistent with common descent. We might study embryos and determine if, for example, cetaceans have limb buds. And by linking these and other avenues of research, scientists have gained confidence in the hypothesis, and extended our understanding.

Thorton said: Do me a favor Hardy. Look up the year when that quote was made, and let us all know what you find, OK?

Why Thorton....has there been a great 'discovery' since then? If so, please tell us the name of the alleged scientist(s) and what experiment they conducted that proves common ancestry evolution is anything but a world view.

Thorton said: Do me a favor Hardy. Look up the year when that quote was made, and let us all know what you find, OK?

Why Thorton....has there been a great 'discovery' since then?

As I already pointed out to you, that quote was made in 1909, over 100 years ago.

Think real hard hardy, try to think of any scientific finds made in the last 100+ years concerning, say, genetics, or evolutionary mechanisms, or knowledge of phylogenetic relationships based on additional paleontological finds.

Neal Tedford: The tautology is using the nested hierarchy as evidence for evolution and using cladograms to build the nested hierarchy.

I am sorry, but I have to agree with Thorton; this is not the argumentation of Zachriel. While nested hierarchies are used to support evolution (that constitutes a very effective explanation framework for them), the "most parsimonious" classification (that can be represented by cladograms) is built based on osservations and not on the "hypothesis" of common descendent.This is what I understand; is it correct? I am not biologist, but as scientist I find no contraddition in this kind of reasoning, that is used at the same way in other field of science with overhelming consens. I repeat, you can discuss other points of the Zachriel's argumentation (if the classification of living organisms shows this pattern according to the evidence that you have), but you cannot label it as a tautology.

Germanicus: While nested hierarchies are used to support evolution (that constitutes a very effective explanation framework for them), the "most parsimonious" classification (that can be represented by cladograms) is built based on osservations and not on the "hypothesis" of common descendent.

Our discussion with Neal Tedford hasn't considered cladograms or common descent. We've only discussed the observed pattern thus far.

A cladogram is essentially a hypothesis of a specific pattern of common descent. Usually, due the huge amount of available data, including genetic data, large numbers of cladograms are compared to determine the best fit. The best fit is defined mathematically, and if there weren't a reasonable fit, it would be apparent in the results.

Of course, the basic nested hierarchy was determined long before cladograms, or even Darwin (Linnæus 1735). It's rather odd that the most important pattern in biology has escaped the notice of the ID Community.

I repeat Thorton: ....has there been a great 'discovery' since then? If so, please tell us the name of the alleged scientist(s) and what experiment they conducted that proves common ancestry evolution is anything but a world view.

I repeat Thorton: ....has there been a great 'discovery' since then? If so, please tell us the name of the alleged scientist(s) and what experiment they conducted that proves common ancestry evolution is anything but a world view.

LOL! Are you really such a Creationist dimbulb that you think there haven't been any scientific discoveries in the last 100+ years?

Here's a hint dimbulb, since you missed it the first time. Google the science of genetics. A lot of work on it was done by a couple of nice gents named Watson and Crick. Possibly the most important scientific field on the planet, research runs into billions of dollars a year, which is why a dimbulb Creationist isn't aware of it.

I'm talking about any alleged evidence you have that proves common descent. Please name the scientist(s) and the experiment(s) they conducted that allegedly proved this. Such a person would be worshipped more than dear old darwin is by you and your evolutionists.

I'm talking about any alleged evidence you have that proves common descent. Please name the scientist(s) and the experiment(s) they conducted that allegedly proved this. Such a person would be worshipped more than dear old darwin is by you and your evolutionists.

I see besides being too lazy to do any research yourself, you're also too dumb to realize that scientific theories can't be proven, they can only be supported with positive evidence.

That being said, there's a metric buttload of evidence to support common descent. If you had the slightest understanding of genetics you'd know about the phylogenetic relationships that have been determined between thousands of extant species via DNA testing.

"The Tree of Life Web Project (ToL) is a collaborative effort of biologists and nature enthusiasts from around the world. On more than 10,000 World Wide Web pages, the project provides information about biodiversity, the characteristics of different groups of organisms, and their evolutionary history (phylogeny)."

Quit being such a dimbulb. Get off your lazy Creationsit duff and learn something about the topic for a change. The information is there, waiting for you.

"For a long time the holy grail was to build a tree of life," says Eric Bapteste, an evolutionary biologist at the Pierre and Marie Curie University in Paris, France. A few years ago it looked as though the grail was within reach. But today the project lies in tatters, torn to pieces by an onslaught of negative evidence. Many biologists now argue that the tree concept is obsolete and needs to be discarded. "We have no evidence at all that the tree of life is a reality," says Bapteste. That bombshell has even persuaded some that our fundamental view of biology needs to change

Besides, even Francis Collins admitted genetic similarity is not evidence for common ancestry because the Creator can re-use successful design principles over again.

As you have cited Bapteste as an authority, then you will agree that, as Bapteste has said, evolutionary mechanisms account for the similarities and differences between organisms.

The Tree of Life has always had anomalies, as Darwin was well-aware. He posited one or several common ancestors, leaning towards a single universal ancestor. Bacteria, in particular, present a problem for phylogeny, but even with the most modern methods, no one has shown conclusively which view is correct.

Besides, even Francis Collins admitted genetic similarity is not evidence for common ancestry because the Creator can re-use successful design principles over again.

Bullcrap. Collins never said that. That is more BS and spin you picked up from a Creto website.

Here are Collins' actual words from May 2009

Francis Collins: "The study of DNA -- the hereditary material -- has enabled the study of human origins to achieve a level of detail Darwin never could have imagined. The decoding of the entire DNA sequence of humans -- the Human Genome Project, which I had the privilege of leading -- along with the genomes of dozens of other vertebrates has been a rigorous test of whether the data actually fits a model of evolution from a common ancestor. And the evidence is overwhelming. Although some people might still argue that DNA similarities do not prove common ancestry -- after all, God might have chosen to use the same DNA motifs for animals of anatomic similarity -- the details of the analysis make that conclusion no longer tenable. " source

So, what else you got Thorton?

Besides 150+ tears of positive evidence from hundreds of scientific disciplines? I've got the entire scientific community laughing at clueless young dimbulbs like yourself. What else do I need?

Collins writes in The Language of God that genetic similarity "alone does not, of course, prove a common ancestor" because a designer could have "used successful design principles over and over again."

hardy: Besides, even Francis Collins admitted genetic similarity is not evidence for common ancestry because the Creator can re-use successful design principles over again.

That is incorrect, and your reliance on partial quotes misleads you.

Collins: This evidence alone does not, of course, prove a common ancestor; from a creationist perspective, such similarities could simply demonstrate that God used successful design principles over and over again. As we shall see, however, and as was foreshadowed above the the discussion of "silent" mutations in protein-coding regions, the detailed study of genomes has rendered that interpretation virtually untenable—not only about all other living things, but also about ourselves.

So, Collins says these similarities ARE evidence for Common Descent, though not alone sufficient to "prove a common ancestor," but when combined with other evidence, renders the creationist perspective virtually untenable.

Collins writes in The Language of God that genetic similarity "alone does not, of course, prove a common ancestor" because a designer could have "used successful design principles over and over again."

Hey dimbulb, I provided Collins' verbatim words. You provided a link to the DI with a dishonest out of context quote-mined and spun version of what Collins said.

As Zachriel has kindly provided the actual Collins statement that the DI dishonestly twisted, I think I'll believe Collins himself over the professional liars at the DI anytime.

So, how's that alleged evidence for common ancestry coming? Got any yet?

Can you hear all those scientifically literate people laughing at your juvenile ignorance and stupidity yet? Maybe some day you'll wise up enough to check your sources and not swallow uncritically the lies you read at places like the DI.

Thorton, what you and Zachriel fail to realize, is that Collins is basing the rest of that quote on the ASSUMPTION of common ancestry, not empirical evidence.

Collins goes on to state: “It is very difficult to understand this observation (talking now of special sequences of DNA occurring in primate chromosomes) without postulating a common ancestor." This “postulating” is an assumption.

Look at the Microsoft Operating Systems. Windows Vista probably contains some of the same code found in Windows 98 and XP...but the reason for that is because they come from the same common creator - Microsoft.

The bottom line is, there is no more evidence for common ancestry than there is for a common Creator.

So, I see you're still lacking in the evidence department when it comes to common ancestry,huh?

Yes, that is what we mean by a scientific hypothesis, that is, scientists propose competing hypotheses, then test their empirical entailments. That's the heart of the scientific method. Did you have a point?

Thorton, what you and Zachriel fail to realize, is that Collins is basing the rest of that quote on the ASSUMPTION of common ancestry, not empirical evidence.

We'll add 'scientific method' to the long list of things you're clueless about. I daresay that Collins knows quite a bit more about genetics and what constitutes genetic empirical evidence than you.

The bottom line is, there is no more evidence for common ancestry than there is for a common Creator.

The real bottom line is that you're making the same argument from your religious based personal incredulity and ignorance. All those 150+ years of corroborating and cross-correlating evidence from hundreds of scientific disciplines somehow magically don't count if you wave your Bible at them.

Why do we find so many fossil sequences that show distinct transitional morphologies correlated with their geologic dates?

Why does the hierarchies tree formed by the fossil record match the independent one formed by the genetic record?

There are lots of things that if discovered would falsify common descent. What evidence would falsify the claim of a common Creator?

So, I see you're still lacking in the evidence department when it comes to common ancestry,huh?

Nope. You're lacking in the intellectual honesty department and refuse to look at the evidence.

No Zachriel, evolutionists START with the assumption that common ancestry is true, although they have no empirical evidence for such an assumption. Think about it, what alleged evidence is there for common ancestry evolution that doesn't first require one accept the assumption common ancestry evolution is true?

Thorton, you're not getting it. Genetic similarity doesn't automatically mean common ancestry as opposed to a common Creator. What happens when the genetic comparison contradicts the phylogeny?

We both place our faith in our beliefs except my faith answers the questions that your faith in evolution, can't. Such as, where did life on earth originally come from? What was the first cause? Obviously 'nature' can't create itself. Who created the complex genetic code? If you think it came about by pure random chance, then Chesterton was right when he said:

"When people stop believing in God, they don't believe in nothing -- they believe in anything."

No Zachriel, evolutionists START with the assumption that common ancestry is true, although they have no empirical evidence for such an assumption.

Typical dimbulb creationist, getting everything bass ackwards. Scientists beginning in the 1800's STARTED with the empirical evidence, then came up with the most parsimonious scenario that would account for ALL of the empirical observations. Darwin and Wallace were the first to hypothesize common descent over deep time as an explanation for the data, and every last discovery made in every last relevant scientific field since then has supported the idea.

hardy said...

Thorton, you're not getting it. Genetic similarity doesn't automatically mean common ancestry as opposed to a common Creator. What happens when the genetic comparison contradicts the phylogeny?

I get it just fine. You're another uneducated Creationist who feels threatened by the solid science that removes you from that 'special, superior' place your religion preaches. Too bad for you.

I noticed you avoided all the evidence for common descent you claimed doesn't exist, and you avoided those questions that ToE can explain but your ignorance based fantasies can't. You get your 'science' from professional liars like the DI and are too lazy to check any of their horsecrap before regurgitating it here.

Tell me again what explanatory or predictive power 'a magic pixie poofed everything into existence' has. Tell me again what would falsify 'a magic pixie poofed everything into existence'

“Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, I know it looks bad for my client. Sure his fingerprints were found on the murder gun, and gunpowder traces were found on his sleeve along with blood splatters that match the victim, and ballistic tests match the killer slug to his pistol, and his DNA from his hair and saliva were found at the scene along with his footprints and fibers from his clothes, and a security badge record check shows him being at the murder location when the murder took place, and a dozen people saw him do the shooting, and a surveillance videocam caught him in the act.. But all that empirical evidence doesn‘t automatically mean he is the murderer, because a supernatural entity for unknown reasons could have poofed all that evidence into existence just to make us think that way .

Thorton dear, I didn't ignore anything. Those pathetic '29+ alleged evidences' are a laughing stock and have been refuted long ago. What you seem to keep missing is the fact you have to ASSUME common ancestry before you can 'see' {wink wink} the alleged evidence for it.

BTW, I noticed you couldn't explain what happens when the genetic comparison contradicts the phylogeny. Why is that dear? Or is your argument basically, common ancestry is supported by the evidence except when it isn't LOL

Thorton dear, I didn't ignore anything. Those pathetic '29+ alleged evidences' are a laughing stock and have been refuted long ago.

LOL! You mean the Ashby Camp 'refutation' pack of lies you read at TrueOrigins claiming the evidence was refuted? I guess you didn't learn your lesson from the last time you believed a Creationist source (on the Collins quote-mined quote) and ended up with egg on your face.

You think all of evidence for common descent has been refuted? Pick one example and we'll examine it in excruciating detail. I guarantee I'll provide multiple cites from the primary scientific literature and make you look like an even bigger ignoramus than you already do. Ready to back up your empty bluster with some hard research results?

BTW, I noticed you couldn't explain what happens when the genetic comparison contradicts the phylogeny.

That's because you're a dimbulb and don't understand the scientific method even a little bit. ALL scientific conclusions are tentative and subject to reevaluation subject to the introduction of new evidence. That included things like tentative phylogenetic relationships based on incomplete evidence which were amended as new evidence came to light.

You Creationists just can't grasp that since our understanding of some tiny little corner of ToE may be changed due to new discoveries, that doesn't somehow magically negate all the rest of the positive evidence.

Here are the questions you keep avoiding again.

Why do we find so many fossil sequences that show distinct transitional morphologies correlated with their geologic dates?

Why does the hierarchies tree formed by the fossil record match the independent one formed by the genetic record?

There are lots of things that if discovered would falsify common descent. What evidence would falsify the claim of a common Creator?

hardy: evolutionists START with the assumption that common ancestry is true, although they have no empirical evidence for such an assumption. Think about it, what alleged evidence is there for common ancestry evolution that doesn't first require one accept the assumption common ancestry evolution is true?

You seem very confused about the scientific method. Darwin certainly started with the evidence, including one of the great scientific journeys of all time, a circumnavigation of the globe. But you still seem confused on the scientific method.

Yes, we propose a hypothesis, in this case, the first-order hypothesis is descent with modification along uncrossed lines. We then deduce the empirical entailments, which is the nested hierarchy of traits. We then make new observations to determine whether the evidence is consistent with the hypothesis.

Like all such hypothesis-testing, it does not 'prove' the hypothesis. It lends support. So we then attempt to find independent test of the hypothesis in order to increase our confidence. We might predict and attempt to find fossil evidence of intermediate organisms. Or with the advent of modern genetics, we might determine whether genes also fit the nested hierarchy. Based on the evidence, we then refine the hypothesis to account for hybridization, convergence, and the like.

Zachriel, darwin hoped and assumed future evidence would prove his theory correct...but it hasn't. In fact it's done just the opposite. When DNA was discovered, it should have put the last nail in the coffin of darwinism.

The only reason darwinism got a foothold in society and some 'scientific' circles was because of fraudulent 'evidence' such as Haeckel's fake drawings and Piltdown Man. Such dishonesty is still being perpetuated today by darwinists. Remember "Ida"? It was even given a special on the history channel prior to be being fully investigated. Turns out, Ida was nothing more than a lemur...but the damage was done and darwinists achieved their goal. the hype over Ida was overwhelmingly more prominent than the pitiful concession of what it really was. Same with archaeoraptor. National Geographic did a nine page spread on it, calling it the missing link, etc only to find out when all the testing had been done on it, that it was a fake. I guarantee you, the retraction was not nine-pages.

If you wish to believe that every living thing is the result of blind random chance and a succession of (billions? trillions?) of genetic mistakes (mutations), then be my guest. We live in a free society that allows you to hold what religious beliefs you choose...but please don't try to claim that common ancestry evolution is a 'scientific' theory when in reality it's nothing more than a faith-based worldview.

Why do we find so many fossil sequences that show distinct transitional morphologies correlated with their geologic dates?

Please show me one species that has a clear succession of fossils showing it evolving into another and then explain how you know they were not separately created species.

Why does the hierarchies tree formed by the fossil record match the independent one formed by the genetic record?

They don't.

For a long time the holy grail was to build a tree of life,” says Eric Bapteste, an evolutionary biologist at the Pierre and Marie Curie University in Paris, France. A few years ago it looked as though the grail was within reach. But today the project lies in tatters, torn to pieces by an onslaught of negative evidence. Many biologists now argue that the tree concept is obsolete and needs to be discarded. “We have no evidence at all that the tree of life is a reality,” says Bapteste. That bombshell has even persuaded some that our fundamental view of biology needs to change.

Care to explain that Thorton?

There are lots of things that if discovered would falsify common descent. What evidence would falsify the claim of a common Creator?

Such as? How can anything falsify the evolutionary worldview when it's the only one allowed?

The primary scientific literature has even more. The idea that some Loki God separately created each one and then planted them in strata of exactly the right age and location to appear as though evolutionary transitions had occurred over time is too stupid to warrant serious discussion.

T: Why does the hierarchies tree formed by the fossil record match the independent one formed by the genetic record?

Your quote-mined Bapteste quote is from an over-hyped New Scientist article discussing HGT. Since you were once again too lazy to check your Creationist Professional Liar sources, here is more from the article:

""Both he (Bapteste) and Doolittle are at pains to stress that downgrading the tree of life doesn't mean that the theory of evolution is wrong - just that evolution is not as tidy as we would like to believe. Some evolutionary relationships are tree-like; many others are not. "We should relax a bit on this," says Doolittle. "We understand evolution pretty well - it's just that it is more complex than Darwin imagined. The tree isn't the only pattern."

You'll never learn, will you? Keep getting your 'facts' from professional liars, you keep looking like an incompetent fool.

T: There are lots of things that if discovered would falsify common descent. What evidence would falsify the claim of a common Creator?

Such as? How can anything falsify the evolutionary worldview when it's the only one allowed?

Such as finding multiple different and incompatible versions of DNA. Or finding completely different, non-matching nested hierarchies of traits in the fossil and genetic records. You seem to be yet another Creationist dimbulb who confuses not falsifiable with not falsified.

Now quit being such a coward and tell me what would falsify the idea of a magic designer 'poofing' everything into existence.

BTW, I noticed you declined my offer to discuss the specifics of technical evidence for common descent. Maybe you do realize your severe limitations after all.

Are you calling Eric Bapteste, one of your own fellow evolutionists, a liar? LMAO

Such as finding multiple different and incompatible versions of DNA. Or finding completely different, non-matching nested hierarchies of traits in the fossil and genetic records.

You mean like this:

In sharks, for example, the gut develops from cells in the roof of the embryonic cavity. In lampreys, the gut develops from cells on the floor of the cavity. And in frogs, the gut develops from cells from both the roof and the floor of the embryonic cavity. This discovery—that homologous structures can be produced by different developmental pathways—contradicts what we would expect to find if all vertebrates share a common ancestor.

BTW Thorton, how can evidence that is totally opposite what evolutionists expected to find, also be considered evidence for their darwinian myth? The answer is, it's UNfalsifiable.

Are you calling Eric Bapteste, one of your own fellow evolutionists, a liar?

No, I'm calling the clowns at the DI liars for their out of context quote-mining. You're merely a dimbulb for swallowing their crap without checking.

You mean like this:

LOL! You just can't wean yourself away from the DI's tit, can you. Your 'falsification' based on the DI's ridiculous claim doesn't have the slightest relevance to evolutionary theory, but you're apparently too ignorant to understand that.

When will you quit being such a spineless wimp and tell me what would falsify the idea of a magic designer 'poofing' everything into existence? Your continued cowardly avoidance of questions is getting rather old.

hardy: evolutionists START with the assumption that common ancestry is true, although they have no empirical evidence for such an assumption. Think about it, what alleged evidence is there for common ancestry evolution that doesn't first require one accept the assumption common ancestry evolution is true?

hardy: The only reason darwinism got a foothold in society and some 'scientific' circles was because of fraudulent 'evidence' such as Haeckel's fake drawings and Piltdown Man.

Darwin's theory had already gained a 'foothold' before those events. In any case, you may not even be aware of your own behavior, but when called on your previous position, you simply abandoned it and changed the subject.

This discovery—that homologous structures can be produced by different developmental pathways—contradicts what we would expect to find if all vertebrates share a common ancestor.

Yes, developmental pathways for homologous structures can diverge. That's discussed in the original source for your misquote, Hall's Evolutionary developmental biology. That's the problem with quote-mines. Not only are there copying errors (like medieval manuscripts), but you haven't bothered to read the text in order to understand the evidence (like medieval copiers).

Thorton said: No, I'm calling the clowns at the DI liars for their out of context quote-mining.

Then please tell us how the following statement by evolutionary biologist Eric Bapteste is taken out of context:

For a long time the holy grail was to build a tree of life,” says Eric Bapteste, an evolutionary biologist at the Pierre and Marie Curie University in Paris, France. A few years ago it looked as though the grail was within reach. But today the project lies in tatters, torn to pieces by an onslaught of negative evidence. Many biologists now argue that the tree concept is obsolete and needs to be discarded. “We have no evidence at all that the tree of life is a reality,” says Bapteste. That bombshell has even persuaded some that our fundamental view of biology needs to change.

Thorton said: No, I'm calling the clowns at the DI liars for their out of context quote-mining.

Then please tell us how the following statement by evolutionary biologist Eric Bapteste is taken out of context:

Eric Bapteste didn't make that whole statement. The bulk of it was written by editor Graham Lawton and appeared in a New Scientist article published January 2009 on Horizontal Gene Transfer. Lawton came under considerable heat from the scientific community for sensationalizing the story on HGT research and its impacts, and later admitted that he did so only to sell more magazines. The fact is, the issue of HGT in non bacterial species is way too minor to obscure the branching relationships found by sequencing DNA.

The DI added another layer of BS when they cut the whole paragraph from the article with no mention of the HGT research that Bapteste was referring to. I already showed you where Bapteste's position was clarified.

You really are a dimbulb who just won't learn. You swallow crap drom the DI without thinking, you look like a fool. And until you stop being too cowardly to answer my questions to you,

"what would falsify the idea of a magic designer 'poofing' everything into existence."

...you have relegated yourself to the status of clown to be laughed at.

For those interested, here is the abstract of a later 2009 paper by Bapteste in which he made it quite clear that in his New Scientist quote he was talking only about prokaryotic evolution, not the overall tree of life.

Prokaryotic evolution and the tree of life are two different things

Abstract: Background

The concept of a tree of life is prevalent in the evolutionary literature. It stems from attempting to obtain a grand unified natural system that reflects a recurrent process of species and lineage splittings for all forms of life. Traditionally, the discipline of systematics operates in a similar hierarchy of bifurcating (sometimes multifurcating) categories. The assumption of a universal tree of life hinges upon the process of evolution being tree-like throughout all forms of life and all of biological time. In multicellular eukaryotes, the molecular mechanisms and species-level population genetics of variation do indeed mainly cause a tree-like structure over time. In prokaryotes, they do not. Prokaryotic evolution and the tree of life are two different things, and we need to treat them as such, rather than extrapolating from macroscopic life to prokaryotes. In the following we will consider this circumstance from philosophical, scientific, and epistemological perspectives, surmising that phylogeny opted for a single model as a holdover from the Modern Synthesis of evolution.

Results

It was far easier to envision and defend the concept of a universal tree of life before we had data from genomes. But the belief that prokaryotes are related by such a tree has now become stronger than the data to support it. The monistic concept of a single universal tree of life appears, in the face of genome data, increasingly obsolete. This traditional model to describe evolution is no longer the most scientifically productive position to hold, because of the plurality of evolutionary patterns and mechanisms involved. Forcing a single bifurcating scheme onto prokaryotic evolution disregards the non-tree-like nature of natural variation among prokaryotes and accounts for only a minority of observations from genomes.

Conclusion

Prokaryotic evolution and the tree of life are two different things. Hence we will briefly set out alternative models to the tree of life to study their evolution. Ultimately, the plurality of evolutionary patterns and mechanisms involved, such as the discontinuity of the process of evolution across the prokaryote-eukaryote divide, summons forth a pluralistic approach to studying evolution.

Phylogeny within bacteria is not completely unamenable to analysis. The degree of horizontal transfer is apparently small enough that whole genome, proteome or multiple-gene analysis can be used to form reasonably consistent trees, at least within phyla.

SO just to be clear Thorton, you're agreeing that evolutionary biologist Eric Bapteste stated (in quotes):

"For a long time the holy grail was to build a tree of life,” says Eric Bapteste, an evolutionary biologist at the Pierre and Marie Curie University in Paris, France. A few years ago it looked as though the grail was within reach. But today the project lies in tatters, torn to pieces by an onslaught of negative evidence. Many biologists now argue that the tree concept is obsolete and needs to be discarded. “We have no evidence at all that the tree of life is a reality,” says Bapteste. That bombshell has even persuaded some that our fundamental view of biology needs to change.

Zachriel said: You still don't seem to grasp the scientific method. Do you understand that a hypothesis is a tentative assumption made in order to draw out and test its empirical consequences?

Absolutely....and if you're conceding that your darwinian religion is a hypothetical, I have no problem with that. When you try to claim it's 'fact' without being able to produce any empirical evidence that doesn't first require I assume common ancestry evolution to be true, then we have a problem.

SO just to be clear Thorton, you're agreeing that evolutionary biologist Eric Bapteste stated (in quotes):

I never disagreed that he said the words in quotes. I showed you how the professional liars at the DI took his words out of context and twisted his meaning. That's called quote-mining, and is considered quite dishonest. I even showed you a later paper of his where he spelled out what he meant in no uncertain terms.

Bapteste: "Prokaryotic evolution and the tree of life are two different things.

In multicellular eukaryotes, the molecular mechanisms and species-level population genetics of variation do indeed mainly cause a tree-like structure over time.

That you continue to repeat the DI's lie after you know it is a lie doesn't speak very well of your intellectual honesty.

And you're still too big a coward to answer a simple question.

"what would falsify the idea of a magic designer 'poofing' everything into existence?"

Absolutely....and if you're conceding that your darwinian religion is a hypothetical, I have no problem with that.

More dishonest word twisting. Neither Zachriel nor anyone in this thread said that.

When you try to claim it's 'fact' without being able to produce any empirical evidence that doesn't first require I assume common ancestry evolution to be true, then we have a problem.

The evidence was produced. You ignored it. Your problem is that you're a dimbulb who doesn't understand even the basics of how science operates. You're too dim to understand the difference between the observed fact of evolution and the theory of evolution that explains the observed fact.

So hardy, your argument is that repeating a lie that you KNOW is a lie is OK as long as you're doing it for Jesus? I don't know whether to laugh or cry at the fact you can't see the problem with that argument.

Zachriel: Do you understand that a hypothesis is a tentative assumption made in order to draw out and test its empirical consequences?

hardy: Absolutely....and if you're conceding that your darwinian religion is a hypothetical, I have no problem with that.

Of course it's a hypothesis (more properly a scientific theory)! One that has confirmed by evidence from a wide variety of fields, from geology to genetics.

hardy: When you try to claim it's 'fact' without being able to produce any empirical evidence that doesn't first require I assume common ancestry evolution to be true, then we have a problem.

You still don't grasp the scientific method. Observe some phenomena. Form a explanation, called the hypothesis. Deduce independent empirical implications of that hypothesis. Test the predictions. Revise, discard or expand the hypothesis as appropriate. Then do it again.

Zachriel, please tell me how anything can falsify materialistic evolution when it's the only 'theory' allowed?

Talking about the scientific method, don't you think it's UNscientific not to allow scientists who reject or disagree with darwinian evolution, to be heard?

Why does the 'theory' of evolution need to be protected from scientists if it has the alleged evidence you believe it does? Lastly, if the theory of evolution is wrong, how will you ever know if you never allow scientists who reject it, to be heard?

Thorton my dear, either the genetic evidence shows common ancestry or it doesn't...and it doesn't.

You can't claim SOME of the genetic comparisons fit your darwinian MYTH and ignore the ones that don't.

Incidentally, since life is comprised of DNA, shouldn't we expect that more similar looking creatures would be more genetically similar? But how does that automatically mean blind, random chance did it as opposed to GOD?

Where did blind random chance get the knowledge of how to create a bacterium with a complex genome?? How did blind, random chance allegedly create life from non-living matter, when scientists have been trying to do the same for decades, and are failing miserably at it???

hardy: please tell me how anything can falsify materialistic evolution when it's the only 'theory' allowed?

A scientific theory is an explanatory framework comprised of a number of interrelated claims. We can falsify a theory by showing that its entailments are contradicted by observation. It's been done many times with the Theory of Evolution, and the old theory was replaced with a modified theory.

hardy: Talking about the scientific method, don't you think it's UNscientific not to allow scientists who reject or disagree with darwinian evolution, to be heard?

You're being heard, but in science, if you want to be taken seriously, then you have to have the data to back up your claims.

I'm simply asking what would falsify it Zachriel? For example, wouldn't evidence that is OPPOSITE what evolutionists expected to find, be an indication that the theory is wrong? So how can that same evidence be claimed as evidence FOR evolution??

You're being heard, but in science, if you want to be taken seriously, then you have to have the data to back up your claims.

I'm not talking about myself...I'm talking about in the mainstream 'scientific' literature. If they don't allow other theories or contradictory evidence to be heard, how will they ever know it exists? What if they had done that to Einstein?

In other words, why can't the belief in materialistic evolution ever be questioned the way other 'scientific theories' are??

I already gave you examples. You ignored them. That's intellectually dishonest.

For example, wouldn't evidence that is OPPOSITE what evolutionists expected to find, be an indication that the theory is wrong?

NO. That's merely an indication that a hypothesis about one small detail of the overall theory is wrong. Having our understanding of one tiny detail of the theory be changed doesn't negate the whole rest of the theory you dimbulb.

So how can that same evidence be claimed as evidence FOR evolution??

It's not. Your woeful ignorance is showing again.

I'm not talking about myself...I'm talking about in the mainstream 'scientific' literature. If they don't allow other theories or contradictory evidence to be heard, how will they ever know it exists? What if they had done that to Einstein?

In other words, why can't the belief in materialistic evolution ever be questioned the way other 'scientific theories' are??

New ideas are not only allowed in science, they are welcomed. The caveat is they need to be supported with positive evidence. That's where you IDCers fail miserably every time. But it's easier for you to whine and moan and play the martyr instead of getting off your lazy asses and doing the work.

BTW coward, you forgot for the fifth time to answer the question.

"what would falsify the idea of a magic designer 'poofing' everything into existence?"

You did not give anything that would falsify materialistic evolution because it's the only 'theory' allowed. Whatever happened is attributed to it.

Yes, I did provide things that if found would have killed the ToE dead in its tracks. Things like finding that every species had its own different and non-compatible version of genetic code. Pity you're too much of an intellectually dishonest dimbulb to deal with them. Pity also you're still too dense to understand the difference between not falsifiable and not falsified.

How do you explain evidence that it totally opposite to what evolutionists expected to find, being hailed as evidence FOR evolution???

It's not. You're talking out of the wrong orifice again.

I offered to discuss the details of evidence for common descent but you refused, remember? You kept quoting Bapteste even after I showed you where the DI's representation of his position was a blatant lie, remember? You bawl about how IDC ideas are refused out of hand by science, but I bet you can't provide a single example of a creationist paper that was submitted to a mainstream science journal and rejected solely due to its subject. Go on, I dare you. Time for you to put up or shut up.

Sadly hardy, you're just another ignorant Creationist whose idea of discussion is to C&P crap from anti-science websites and scream "NUH UH!" at every piece of real scientific evidence that gets presented. Clueless IDC clowns like you are a dime a dozen on the net. You have no interest in learning, only mindlessly regurgitating empty rhetoric you read elsewhere. From what you've show here I doubt you're capable of any independent thought or critical reasoning on your own.

Oh, and you're still a coward who refuses to answer a simple question. Sixth time asking:

"what would falsify the idea of a magic designer 'poofing' everything into existence?"

Show that rabbits existed in the Precambrian (or similar misplacement of an organism and its posited ancestor).

Even after an explanation, you have failed to understand the basic principles of science. A scientific theory is an explanatory framework, and is usually a number of interrelated claims. In particular, there are actually several competing versions of the Theory of Evolution, for instance, some emphasize drift, others selection. And there are a number of historical claims that are in dispute. Evidence is collected by scientists to resolve these differences. That life has evolved and diversified over time is without any plausible doubt. But if you have evidence to the contrary, then you should present it.

hardy: How do you explain evidence that it totally opposite to what evolutionists expected to find, being hailed as evidence FOR evolution???

Because the Theory of Evolution is a complex scientific framework, including historical claims.

Thoroton states (in regards to what would falsify the darwinian myth - "Yes, I did provide things that if found would have killed the ToE dead in its tracks. Things like finding that every species had its own different and non-compatible version of genetic code.

Well, considering we know life is based on DNA, and you're making this claim AFTER the fact, I rest my case. What are you going to claim next - that the sun is hot?

The myth of evolution is UNfalsifiable because whatever happened/happens is attributed to it.

Let me give you an example dear Thorton:

When the kangaroo genome was sequenced and compared to ours, evolutionists were 'surprised'(translated: WTH????) when they discovered that there were large parts of OUR genome in it. Now, this was not supposed to be, you see, because according to the evolutionary fairytale,there are 150 million years of evolution separating us....but no worries, evolution is magical like that, the little scamp. Had the genomes been completely different, well that would be what they expected because 150 million years of evolution had elapsed. However, having large portions of our genome in the kangaroo genome, is also explained away because of 'conservation'. You guys have covered your bases extremely well, but in doing so, you have proven the evolutionary MYTH is UNfalsifiable.

See what happens when you try to make a lie, into the truth...you trap yourself.

Thoroton states (in regards to what would falsify the darwinian myth - "Yes, I did provide things that if found would have killed the ToE dead in its tracks. Things like finding that every species had its own different and non-compatible version of genetic code.

Well, considering we know life is based on DNA, and you're making this claim AFTER the fact, I rest my case. What are you going to claim next - that the sun is hot?

You asked for something that if found would falsify ToE. I gave it to you. That means ToE is falsifiable.

That you're still too stupid to understand the difference between not falsifiable and not falsified is not my problem. You'll have to sit and stew in your ignorance by yourself.

Oh, and your continued cowardice is noted: Seventh time asking:

"what would falsify the idea of a magic designer 'poofing' everything into existence?"

Zachriel said: Show that rabbits existed in the Precambrian (or similar misplacement of an organism and its posited ancestor).

Oh, you mean like fossilized pollen grains?According to the evolutionary fairytale, they were found to exist several hundred million years too early in the fossil record. A rabbit in the cambrian? YEP.

Now, explain it away and prove my point.You can always resort to using the last linein your post: ;-)

... the Theory of Evolution is a complex scientific framework, including historical claims

BTW Zachriel, do you remember when we were told organics could not last more than 100,000 years MAXMIUM? That was accepted knowledge based on our observations of decay...BUT, all that changed when not one, but TWO separate dinosaur fossils were discovered which contained organic material. Now, how is that possible if those magnificent creatures died out 70 million years ago according to the evolutionary fairytale?

Suddenly, organics could now last not merely 100,000 years MAX, but at least 70 MILLION years. {Rolls eyes) And what excuse was given? Well, it seems evolutionists have more to learn about fossilization. I kid you not, they actually had the GALL to make such a claim. It never occurred to them that MAYBE, just MAYBE, they were wrong about when dinosaurs walked the earth, considering that's a historical assumption while decomposition is a testable fact.

Even after an explanation, you have failed to understand the basic principles of science. A scientific theory is an explanatory framework, and is usually a number of interrelated claims. In particular, there are actually several competing versions of the Theory of Evolution, for instance, some emphasize drift, others selection. And there are a number of historical claims that are in dispute. Evidence is collected by scientists to resolve these differences. That life has evolved and diversified over time is without any plausible doubt. But if you have evidence to the contrary, then you should present it.

Stephen Meyer DID present it to name just one. A peer-reviewed paper was presented and Richard Sternberg accepted it while at the Smithsonian...then all hell broke loose. I suggest you go to Sternberg's website to read the findings of the independent investigations that resulted.

BTW Zachriel, don't you find it a little strange that fossils alleged to be many millions of years old, look like their modern-day descendants?

We recently had an example with a shrimp fossil alleged to be 350 million years of age...and yet it looks extremely similar to modern shrimp. Go figure. And here's another one:

"Dr. Wilson said the new find showed that ants similar to modern ants lived 90 million years ago and that the number of species had already started multiplying."

I guess it never occurred to these geniuses that the reason the fossils look so similar to their modern day descendants is because they were created probably within the last 10,000 years.

It boggles the mind to hear them marvel at how little something has changed and then proclaim hundreds of millions of years of evolution separates them. R.I.P science.

Thorton said: You asked for something that if found would falsify ToE. I gave it to you. That means ToE is falsifiable.

Claiming that finding a living system with a 'genetic code' other than DNA would falsify your darwinian MYTH, is absurd, child.

Your darwinian ilk would simply claim life must have sprung forward (from non-living matter no less) MULTIPLE times and that dna is not the only blueprint for life on earth. See Thorton, I just rescued your darwinian myth for you..UNfalsifiable.

Thorton said: You asked for something that if found would falsify ToE. I gave it to you. That means ToE is falsifiable.

Claiming that finding a living system with a 'genetic code' other than DNA would falsify your darwinian MYTH, is absurd, child.

Your darwinian ilk would simply claim life must have sprung forward (from non-living matter no less) MULTIPLE times and that dna is not the only blueprint for life on earth. See Thorton, I just rescued your darwinian myth for you..UNfalsifiable.

What you just described is the falsification of the current ToE and the replacement of it with another, different theory of life on Earth's history.

Congratulations for disproving your own stupid claim.

And of course you're still to cowardly to answer: Eighth time asking:

"what would falsify the idea of a magic designer 'poofing' everything into existence?"

How does that work for you in real life, cowardly running from every question you can't answer?

I guess it never occurred to these geniuses that the reason the fossils look so similar to their modern day descendants is because they were created probably within the last 10,000 years.

I guess it never occurred to you dirt-ignorant Creationists that science has hundreds of independent lines of evidence that show life has been here on the planet way way longer than 10,000 years. But don't let scientific evidence get in the way of your religious fantasy.

Problem is, most Creationist are too dense to consider more than one piece of evidence at a time. So we get their jaws flapping and their arms waving, but no explanation for why the multiple independent lines of evidence all agree and all point to a deep-time history of life and the planet.

Thortoon said: I guess it never occurred to you dirt-ignorant Creationists that science has hundreds of independent lines of evidence that show life has been here on the planet way way longer than 10,000 years.

Oh, you mean like the fallible dating methods that have produced wildly outrageous dates on samples of KNOWN age? Your darwinian myth is nothing but a fairytale.

Thortoon said: I guess it never occurred to you dirt-ignorant Creationists that science has hundreds of independent lines of evidence that show life has been here on the planet way way longer than 10,000 years.

Oh, you mean like the fallible dating methods that have produced wildly outrageous dates on samples of KNOWN age? Your darwinian myth is nothing but a fairytale.

Citation please. I don't know of any such occurrence.

I do know of attempts at deliberate fraud by Creationists where they took fresh lave samples contaminated with much older rock (xenoliths) for radiometric dating, then when the lab results showed dates older than the lava screamed YOUNG EARTH!!

If you know of any verified cases please present them. I've already heard all the standard Creationist lies.

Tell me dimbulb, why are trilobites found all over the planet in a huge range of strata covering almost 300 million years of geologic time, but never found in strata that dates younger than 251 million years?

And of course, you'll keep being a coward and dodging questions. Ninth time asking:

"what would falsify the idea of a magic designer 'poofing' everything into existence?"

Sorry dimbulb,I asked for a verified reference. Directing me to a Creationist site that has the same unsubstantiated lies posted doesn't count as a reference.

Please post a link to the primary scientific research that supports your outlandish claim. If you can't provide a link, then provide a proper reference with the authors' names, paper title, and journal in which it was published.

Why did I know you'd be too much of a coward to address my trilobite question? Because you're a dimbulb creationist who doesn't know his butt from his elbow, scientifically speaking.

Speaking of you cowardly avoiding questions - Tenth time asking:

"what would falsify the idea of a magic designer 'poofing' everything into existence?"

Tiny portions of the same piece of fossil wood encased in the basalt in the drill core were sent for radiocarbon (14C) analyses to two reputable laboratories—Geochron Laboratories in Cambridge, Boston (USA), and the Antares Mass Spectrometry laboratory at the Australian Nuclear Science and Technology Organisation (ANSTO), Lucas Heights near Sydney (Australia). Neither laboratory was told exactly where the samples came from to ensure that there would be no resultant bias. Both laboratories use the more sensitive accelerator mass spectrometry (AMS) technique for radiocarbon analyses, Geochron being a commercial laboratory and Antares being a major research laboratory. Also, tiny fragments of the initial wood samples provided to us, from the pieces of wood that had been found during sinking of the ventilation shaft, were sent off for radiocarbon analyses—one set of different fragments to each laboratory.

Pieces of the basalt samples from the outcrop and the drill core were also sent to analytical laboratories, for major, minor, and trace element analyses to establish the character of these rocks, but mainly for radioactive ‘dating’ analyses. Potassium-argon (K-Ar) ‘dating’ was performed on the two outcrop samples by the AMDEL laboratory in Adelaide (Australia), while one of the two outcrop samples and two drill core samples, one being in contact with the fossil wood, were ‘dated’ by Geochron Laboratories.

Results

The radiocarbon (14C) results are listed in Table 1.8 It is immediately evident that there was detectable radiocarbon in all wood samples, so that the laboratories’ staff had neither hesitation nor difficulties in calculating 14C ‘ages’. When subsequently questioned regarding the limits of the analytical method for the radiocarbon and any possibility of contamination, staff at both laboratories (Ph.D. scientists) were readily insistent that the results, with one exception,9 were within the detection limits and therefore provided quotable finite ‘ages’!8 Furthermore, they pointed to the almost identical δ13C results (last column in Table 1), consistent with the carbon being organic carbon from wood, and indicating no possibility of contamination. So the results in Table 1 are staunchly defended by the laboratories as valid, indicating an ‘age’ of perhaps 44,000–45,500 years for the wood encased in the basalt retrieved from the drill core.In stark contrast to the ‘age’ of the wood are the potassium-argon (K-AR) ‘ages’ of the basalt (see Table 2).8 It is readily apparent that there are significant variations in the results, as evident in the calculated ‘ages’ of the outcrop 2 sample provided by each laboratory. The problem of obtaining consistently ‘acceptable’ K-AR ‘ages’ is also highlighted by the observation that both outcrop and both drill core samples probably represent the same basalt flow in each respective location (hence the calculated average ‘ages’ in the last column of Table 2).10 The staff of both laboratories (again Ph.D. scientists) defended their analytical results,8,11 and did not hesitate to affirm that these basalt samples are, according to their radioactive K-AR ‘dating’, around 45 million years old.

They can both be right because in all probability the wood samples sent for radiocarbon dating weren't the fossilized wood samples recovered in Queensland. AIG has been caught if such 'bait and switch' deliberate frauds before (like the lava with the contaminating xenoliths) so their credibility with the scientific community is zero point squat. We have no way to verify their results since Snelling and AIG didn't present the work or samples for any sort of peer review and/or publishing.

BTW dimbulb, the 44K dates for the wood and the 45M dates for the basalt are both way older than the 10K maximum age of living things you claimed earlier. I suppose that inconvenient fact slipped right past your dimbulb brain.

This is the actual source: Wakefield & Graves, The kangaroo genome, Nature 2003. If you read the paper, it doesn't support your simplified views. This is what they say, "The kangaroo fills a large gap in the vertebrate phylogeny and provides a middle ground between birds and eutherian mammals. Most eutherian mammals diverged less than 80 million years ago, whereas birds diverged about 350 million years ago (Benton, 1990; Murphy et al., 2001)."

hardy: Fossilized Pollen Grains Source:

You didn't provide a cite, and couldn't figure it out from what you did provide. However, strata can become contaminated, especially by microscopic pollen, so care has to be taken to avoid erroneous results.

Zachriel, I take it from your limited, white-flag-waving post that you concede I was right about theclaims I made. So, please tell me how data that is totally opposite what evolutionists expected to find, can also be considered evidence FOR their 'theory', UNLESS their 'theory' is UNfalsifiable??

"There are a few differences, we have a few more of this, a few less of that, but they are the same genes and a lot of them are in the same order," center Director Jenny Graves told reporters in Melbourne.

"We thought they'd be completely scrambled, but they're not. There is great chunks of the human genome which is sitting right there in the kangaroo genome,"

So, if the genomes had been completely scrambled (as evolutionists predicted) it would be considered evidence for their myth...but the genome has a lot of similarity to OUR genome, which was surprising to graves because evolution does NOT predict that, well that's ALSO allegedly evidence for their evolutionary myth!?!?!

hardy: I take it from your limited, white-flag-waving post that you concede I was right about the claims I made.

You're not making a lot of sense. You apparently never read the papers, have no desire to read the papers, and don't care to understand them. We point that out so that our readers will see your position for what it is.

hardy: So, please tell me how data that is totally opposite what evolutionists expected to find, can also be considered evidence FOR their 'theory', UNLESS their 'theory' is UNfalsifiable??

We explained this above. Because there are many possible histories consistent with the Theory of Evolution.

hardy: but the genome has a lot of similarity to OUR genome, which was surprising to graves because evolution does NOT predict that, well that's ALSO allegedly evidence for their evolutionary myth!?!?!

It's always been expected that the genomes of marsupials and eutherians would have many similarities. The question has been how similar.

Zachriel, your inability to refute what Graves said, is very telling. Instead of having the intellectual honesty to admit your darwinian myth is Unfaslifiable, you choose to retain your illogical position in the face of contradictory evidence.

Cornelius G. Hunter is a graduate of the University of Illinois where
he earned a Ph.D. in Biophysics and Computational Biology. He is
Adjunct Professor at Biola University and author of the award-winning Darwin’s God: Evolution and the Problem of Evil. Hunter’s other books include Darwin’s Proof, and his newest book Science’s Blind Spot
(Baker/Brazos Press). Dr. Hunter's interest in the theory of evolution
involves the historical and theological, as well as scientific, aspects
of the theory. His website is http://www.darwins-god.blogspot.com/